RE: Vedr.: RE: Is FIS in semiotics and what is abduction?

Dear Soren,

Thanks for your comments.

Frankly I think Peirce's hirsute nomenclature could do with a decent shave from Occam's razor (:
but his insights are provocative. I am neither a semiotist nor , as Ionesco might have said, an anti-semiotist but a discussion about 'meaning' and foundations of information science (John Collier's original thread) needs to address the viability of abduction as a force in a unifying theory.

Is semiosis is to be the corner stone of our 'information science'? If so then signification
(sign games) and the abductive method rather than classical syllogistic (or Florido's alethic)
logic is our starting point. Alternatively , if 'information science' is to be based on a theory of 'meaning' that's a whole new ball game.

You wrote:

<Thus meaning is important in this function. From our present theories of intelligence, <information and cognition we cannot grasp this function. We know it bears on context, and how <this context is seen by the observer and the interest with which he or she enters it.

If we separate meaning from classical logic (exemplified in Florido's concept of semantic information) as has occurred more or less in postKantian phenomenology (Heidegger, Derrida, Peirce etc) we are left with the admittedly vague function of abductive inference and
context-bound interest . Does it yield 'too little knowledge' for a working methodology which would satisfy all 'four corners'of your model?

Some of course might argue that there is no necessary confluence of information and meaning
(cf Fred Dretske's 'Meaning, and the constellation of mental attitudes that exhibit it, are manufactured products. The raw material is information." in:Knowledge and the Flow of Information
1999 Preface).

<To my understanding abduction is very central to Peirce's theory of semiotics and logic. There <is not classical logical inferential power or determinism behind abduction. It is always done on <a basis of too little knowledge, but it is the function central to perception, making sense of <things or in short to create a sign relation: signification.

Peirce argues that abduction 'itself starts a question' which is possibly the link to
an informational context by 'implication' - abduction being 'an explanation which arises spontaneously upon considering that which in each circumstance has surprised us'.

Since Peirce redefined 'induction' away from the classical sense towards
a heuristic principle of signification it may be fruitful to explore his six modes of abduction
(hunch/symptom/metaphor/clue/diagnosis/explanation). If we could make a connection between
'abduction' in the biomedical domain and 'abductive triggers' (surprise/novelty/anomaly) in phenomenology it could have considerable explanatory power for a unifying theory.

Apart from the cognitive direction at Stanford (Aliseda, Konolige et al) has there been any work done in cybernetics in this area? I'm aware that that the Hawkesbury School here in Sydney
has produced some interesting results with abductive research in the field of agriculture (Vlad Dimitrov et al).

Cheers,

John H

-----Original Message-----
From: Søren Brier [mailto:sbr@kvl.dk]
Sent: Saturday, 3 August 2002 2:21
To: Multiple recipients of list FIS
Subject: Vedr.: RE: Is FIS in semiotics and what is abduction?

Dear John Holgate

Sorry to answer so late on your question on abduction, but I have been on conference and holiday.

To my understanding abduction is very central to Peirce' s theory of semiotics and logic. There is not classical logical inferential power or determinism behind abduction. It is always done on a basis of too little knowledge, but it is the function central to perception, making sense of things or in short to create a sign relation: signification.

Thus meaning is important in this function. From our present theories of intelligence, information and cognition we cannot grasp this function. We know it bears on context, and how this context is seen by the observer and the interest with which he or she enters it. The biological, psychological and social relations and their history and relations to the habits of nature and society are important, and therefore the informational, the semiotic and the linguistic levels of communication all influences the process. But it is in the end still based on the free will of the individual and the individual way it constructs its 'signification sphere' (Umwelt).

The frame work I am writing within is further explain in the paper I have given to this conference. It is a bit different from most participants I think. But it is based on a theory on the relation between physical descriptions, information science, semiotics and language as four different levels of reality encompassed in a cybernetic interpretation of Peirce's semiotics.

Søren Brier, +45 3528 2689

http://www.flec.kvl.dk/personalprofile.asp?id=sbr&p=engelsk

Ed. of Cybernetics & Human Knowing

http://www.imprint-academic.com/C&HK

>>> HolgateJ@sesahs.nsw.GOV.AU 17-07-02 06:18 >>>
Pedro,

You commented:

<One possible referent to consider about abduction, besides the
<philosophical conceptualizations, might be the social realm.
<It would be very interesting that we could manage to establish a family
<resemblance between the different approaches to abduction --philosophical,
<biological, social...

Since the provenance of the modern concept of abduction is often ascribed to
C S Pierce's pragmatism it would be interesting to hear from Soren or Edwina
on this one (Edwina has just done that succinctly linking philosophical abduction
to 'new interactions' between minor premisses with the sign system).

We probably need to clarify the different domain definitions a bit.

In the medical field abduction (movement of a limb away from the median
plane of the body) has a counterpart in adduction (towards the body).

How is that connected to the philosophical concept?

Pedro, I was interested whether 'adduction' also operates at the cell level -
possibly more likely than induction and deduction <:)

In philosophy, abduction (from 'apagoge' rather than 'abducere') is arguing
from a minor premiss where the major premiss is given. Adduction/abduction
represents a movement between adducing best evidence (citation) and the experiential
mapping from an accepted 'body' of knowledge (heuristics, instructions etc).
The Oslerian medical model, for example, has operated under this paradigm.
 
The classical movement of induction/deduction (between the general and the particular)
operates in the background of the abductive process. According to sociologists
like Berger and Lukacs abduction (without the dynamic coherence of a rational
dialectic) can lead to 'reification' and its converse anthropomorphism (where IMHO McLuhan was
heading by mechanicising the 'message'). If you accept the 'triadic sign' framework
of semiosis you can avoid that dilemma (just as accepting the doctrine of the
trinity solves the odd theological paradox) but that doesn't cater for the
more pentecostal (Batesonian) view of abduction:

"All thought would be totally impossible in a universe in which abduction was not expectable.
. I am concerned with changes in basic epistemology, character, self, and so on.
Any change in our epistemology will involve shifting our whole system of abductions.
We must pass through the threat of that chaos where thought becomes impossible."
Gregory Bateson (Mind and Nature)
 
http://www.elfis.net/elfol3/abdgb.html

At this point we probably need a tag wrestling match between Bateson and Pierce
and their supporters...

With respect to 'media' clearly the Internet is a marvellous playground for abductive thinking
since major premisses are rarely challenged as we bounce between minor premisses as
we are doing right now! The Web has no Top Gun. The game is largely in the searching and mapping of received notions - an intellectual trash and treasure hunt in which the truth is 'out there somewhere' (Pedro's 'multiple 'bubbles' with almost nothing but a referent to an outside, patchy framework' like the hyperlink above).

The third meaning of 'abduction' (seduction, kidnapping, UFO's etc) which
dominates the media may not be unrelated to the other senses (or even
to James Barham's idea of 'fooling interaction' in an informational process).
Maybe Rafael's concept of 'angelia' (Botschaft or intercessionary communication)
could link this in rather nicely while avoiding the Scylla of Shannon/Miller
communication theory and the Charybdis of McLuhanism.

John C may be right in thinking that following 'abduction' may abduce us further
down the garden path but it might be an enjoyable and significant stroll.

John H

-----Original Message-----
From: "Pedro C. Marijuán" [mailto:marijuan@posta.unizar.es]
Sent: Tuesday, 16 July 2002 21:32
To: Multiple recipients of list FIS
Subject: RE: Is FIS in semiotics?

Dear John C & John H --and FIS colleagues

At 10.24 11/7/02 +0200, John Collier wrote:
>>If a (possibly non-Shannonist) information theory were to adopt 'meaning'
>>does it head off for a semantic bushwalk (with Frege, Fodor, Dretske et al)?
>>It might be more fruitful for our theory to explore a resonant concept like
>>'abduction'(which has attracted Gregory Bateson, C S Pierce and the radical
>>constructivists who have occasionally hovered over our conversations).
>
>I agree with the last, wholeheartedly. I am not at all convinced it is enough,
>or even on the right track ultimately, but definitely fruitful to explore.

I would love hearing further thoughts from you two, and any interested
party, about these different approaches to (philosophical?) abduction. In
my own excursions onto biological (cellular) abduction I have always
stumbled on the conceptual-cluster problem: the parallel need to articulate
coherently several impossible concepts (function, life cycle, knowledge,
symmetry-breaking, functional void...). I wonder whether, philosophically,
something similar occurs.

One possible referent to consider about abduction, besides the
philosophical conceptualizations, might be the social realm. I mean, what
is the 'info' mission of our means of communication? How do media fabricate
'news'? Actually, the doings and workings of the famous 'media' of our
societies, that we take for granted, were brought to the attention of
scholars by Marshall McLuhan. In spite of the rather unfavorable view that
most social scientists nowadays have on his work, I believe that he was
very fertile. Particularly, in some parts of his analysis the 'abduction'
idea looms. His slogan the 'media is the message' somehow suggests about
the 'voidness' landscape that accompanies the media abduction of
news... multiple 'bubbles' with almost nothing but a referent to an
outside, patchy framework. (But probably this is too biased an
interpretation of mine).

It would be very interesting that we could manage to establish a family
resemblance between the different approaches to abduction --philosophical,
biological, social...

best wishes

Pedro

=========================================
Pedro C. Marijuán
Fundación CIRCE
CPS, Univ. Zaragoza, 50018 Zaragoza, Spain
TEL. (34) 976 762036-761863, FAX (34) 976 732078
email: marijuan@posta.unizar.es
=========================================